Envelopment technique and topographic overlays in bite mark analysis


Parimala Djeapragassam
Mariappan Daniel
Subramanian Srinivasan
Koliyan Ramadoss
Vannathan Jimsha


Aims and Objectives: The aims and objectives of our study were to compare four sequential overlays generated using the envelopment technique and to evaluate inter- and intraoperator reliability of the overlays obtained by the envelopment technique. Materials and Methods: Dental stone models were prepared from impressions made from healthy individuals; photographs were taken and computer-assisted overlays were generated. The models were then enveloped in a different-color dental stone. After this, four sequential cuts were made at a thickness of 1mm each. Each sectional cut was photographed and overlays were generated. Thus, 125 overlays were generated and compared. Results: The scoring was done based on matching accuracy and the data were analyzed. The Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used to compare four sequential overlays and Spearman′s rank correlation tests were used to evaluate the inter- and intraoperator reliability of the overlays obtained by the envelopment technique. Conclusion: Through our study, we conclude that the third and fourth cuts were the best among the four cuts and inter- and intraoperator reliability were found to be statistically significant at 5% level that is 95% confidence interval (P < 0.05).


How to Cite
Parimala Djeapragassam, Mariappan Daniel, Subramanian Srinivasan, Koliyan Ramadoss, & Vannathan Jimsha. (2015). Envelopment technique and topographic overlays in bite mark analysis. Journal of Forensic Dental Sciences, 7(3), 184–188. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-1475.172427


  1. American Board of Forensic Odontology (2013) Diplomates Reference Manual. Available from: www.abfo.org/wp./ ABFO‑Reference‑Manual‑1‑22‑2013‑revision.pdf. [Last accessed on 2013 Dec 15].
  2. Kaur S, Krishan K, Chatterjee PM, Kanchan T. Analysis and identification of bite marks in forensic casework.Oral Health Dent Manag2013;12:127‑31.
  3. DKWhittaker, DGMacDonald. AColour Atlas of Forensic Dentistry. London: Wolfe Publishing Ltd; 1989. p. 120‑3.
  4. Kouble RF, Craig GT. A comparison between direct and indirect methods available for human bite mark analysis. J Forensic Sci 2004;49:111‑8.
  5. DorionRB. BitemarkEvidence, 1sted. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2005.p. 423‑451.
  6. Maloth S, Ganapathy KS. Comparison between five commonly used two‑dimensional methods of human bite mark overlay production from dental study casts. Indian J Dent Res 2011;22:493.
  7. Sweet D, Bowers CM. Accuracy of bite mark overlays: Acomparison of five common methods to produce exemplars from a suspect’s dentition. J Forensic Sci 1998;43:362‑7.
  8. NaruAS, DykesE. The use of a digital imaging technique to aid bite mark analysis. Sci Justice1996;36:47‑50.
  9. McNamee AH, Sweet D, Pretty I. A comparative reliability analysis of computer‑generated bite mark overlays. J Forensic Sci 2005;50:400‑5.
  10. Stavrianos C, Vasiliadis L, Emmanouil J, Papadopoulos C. In vivo evaluation of the accuracy of twomethods for the bite markanalysis in food stuff. Res JMedSci 2011;5:25‑31.
  11. Sweet D, Parhar M, Wood RE. Computer‑based production of bite mark comparison overlays. J Forensic Sci 1998;43:1050‑5.
  12. Dailey JC. The topographic mapping of teeth for overlay production in bite mark analysis. Proceedings of the American Academy of forensic Sciences.Atlanta 2002:237.
  13. MetcalfRD. Yet another method for marking incisal edges of teeth for bitemark analysis. J Forensic Sci 2008;53:426‑9.
  14. Kasie Nam, Edwin T. Parks, G. Eckert. Computerized incisal edge tracing using different dental stone colors. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. Atlanta 2002:230‑1.
  15. Pretty IA. Forensic dentistry: 2. Bitemarksand bite injuries. Dent Update 2008;35:48‑50, 53‑4, 57‑8.
  16. Page M, Taylor J, Blenkin M. Reality bites‑‑A ten‑year retrospective analysis of bitemark casework in Australia. Forensic SciInt 2012;216:82‑7.
  17. Pretty IA, Sweet D. A paradigm shift in the analysis ofbitemarks. Forensic SciInt 2010;201:38‑44.
  18. Rai B, Anand SC, Madan M, Dhattarwal SK. Bite marks: A new identification technique. IJFS 2006;2 (1).
  19. Rajshekar M, Kruger E, Tennant M. Bite‑marks: Understanding the role of general practitioners in forensic identification. JInt Oral Health 2012;4:1‑8